Guest Post by Erl Happ
This article investigates the sources of natural climate variation. This is a long post but it’s a big subject. Before you get half way through, your perception of the way things are, will have changed. You might even begin to smile inwardly, as if a burden had been removed from your shoulders.
I begin with a description of the critical features of the atmosphere as I perceive them, and it is different to what you will find in Wikipedia or an IPCC report.
Figure 1 shows the major wind systems, the location of the jet streams in the upper troposphere and the polar front. Were the vertical scale to be in strict accord with the horizontal, the atmosphere would be embodied in the line drawn to represent the perimeter of the Earth’s surface. About 75% of the mass of the atmosphere is held within 10 kilometers (6 miles) of the surface. Figure 1 is in that respect, a spectacular fiction. Suggesting that the composition of that skin, when change is reckoned in just parts per million, can change the temperature of the surface of the earth, is not good science. Were the atmosphere completely static, yes, but only to a very small degree. Still air is a fair insulator; moving air is no insulator at all.
The greenhouse idea is too simple, too unsophisticated and too easy. It is a disabling thought pattern that climatologists must discard if they are to understand the system. Understanding the system is a pre-requisite to modeling it.
Figure 1 The surface winds
Beyond an altitude of about 10km, the atmosphere changes in its composition according to the variable flow of nitrogen compounds from the mesosphere via the polar night jets and also the intensity of short wave radiation from the sun that splits the oxygen molecule, allowing the formation of ozone, but only to the extent to which the presence of oxides of nitrogen will allow. The ozone rich layer from 10 to 50km in elevation is called the stratosphere. The ability of ozone to trap long wave radiation from the Earth delivers increasing air temperature all the way to 45 km in elevation. At the equator the temperature that is reached is sufficient to melt ice but at the poles it is 10-20°C more. Increased ozone concentration at the poles increases stratospheric air temperatures despite a decline in the incidence of short wave radiation with latitude. The flux in ozone concentration is the prime agent of change in the temperature of the stratosphere and the upper troposphere.
The stratosphere is Earth’s natural greenhouse umbrella. In that role it has the advantage over the troposphere that it is relatively non convective. But only where there is a downward transport of ozone into the troposphere do we see an impact of ozone on surface temperature. This impact on surface temperature is not due to back radiation, unphysical due to strongly countervailing processes within the troposphere, but flux in cloud cover that is a direct result of flux of ozone into the cloud bearing troposphere.
In the context of the forces described above, the issue as to whether the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million or 550 parts per million is inconsequential (so far as ‘climate’ is concerned), but to the extent that it would enhance the productivity of photosynthesizing plants and marine organisms, enhancing evaporation, thereby cooling the near surface air and sustaining life, a little more rather than a little less would be desirable. CO2, along with nitrogen, is the fertilizer in the air. From the point of view of a plant, these are scarce building blocks and none more so than CO2 at just 380 parts per million. Can you appreciate the difficulty attached to finding a unique vehicle in a parking lot with 2,600 others. In order to survive a plant must select from the molecular parade, a molecule that is supplied in that ratio. The efficiency of plants in assimilating CO2, so rendering it a ‘trace gas’, is plainly evident in the savaging of the CO2 content of the global atmosphere in northern summer when the great bulk of the global plant life on land benefits from temperature that is warm enough to sustain photosynthesis.
While there is water and carbon dioxide on Earth there will be plant life and CO2 will always be a trace gas. Paradoxically, as the CO2 content of the air rises, a plant uses less water and is capable of living in a drier environment.
This has been a preamble. I hope you are ready to look at the climate system with new and inquiring eyes.
The first part of my story is about atmospheric pressure and the winds. The second, to come at a later date, the clouds, and the third the sun and its influence on the distribution of the atmosphere and its circulations.
All data presented here is from: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
THE WIND
Figure 2 Average sea level pressure by latitude in mb.
Figure 2 shows the average air pressure at the surface between 1948 and October 2010 as it varies with latitude. Air moves from zones of high to low pressure and we call it wind. It can be seen that pressure relations define a climate system where:
- Sea level pressure is higher in winter than summer, especially over Antarctica.
- Apart from Antarctica in winter, pressure is highest at about 20-40° of latitude in both hemispheres. This is the region of the traveling high pressure cells where air descends, warming via compression, promoting relatively cloud free conditions. The trades and the westerly’s originate here.
- Globally the lowest sea level pressure is experienced at 60-70°south latitude. This limits the southward travel of the humid north westerly winds and the northward travel of the cold and dry polar easterlies in the southern hemisphere. By contrast there is no such pressure trough in the northern hemisphere. That hemisphere will accordingly freeze or fry according to whether the easterlies or the westerlies prevail. Whether the prevailing wind is from the north or the south depends upon the balance of atmospheric pressure between the Arctic and 30-40°N. Because pressure relations change in a systematic fashion over time (will be documented below) this dynamic dictates the direction of temperature change in the northern hemisphere.
The average character of the wind according to latitude
By subtracting the sea level pressure at destination latitude from that at source latitude, the average pressure differential driving the surface winds can be calculated.
Figure 3 The differential pressure between key latitudes driving the surface winds in mb
Abbreviations: PENH (Polar Easterlies Northern Hemisphere), PESH (Polar Easterlies Southern Hemisphere), SW (South Westerlies), NET (North East Trades), SET (South East Trades), NW (North Westerlies).
The strongest winds are found in Antarctica in winter. The differential pressure driving the surface winds falls away from south to north. Figures 2 and 3 taken together suggest that there is fundamental difference between the hemispheres, a theme that will run throughout this post and an understanding that is essential if one is to appreciate the source of change in surface temperature over time.
With the exception of the Trades and the Westerlies in the southern hemisphere (where there is little difference between the seasons) the differential pressure is noticeably higher in winter.
In the Arctic the differential driving the surface polar easterlies is only weakly positive, a marked contrast to conditions in the southern hemisphere. Consequently the dominant wind from 30°N latitude to the Arctic is the South Westerly, bringing warm moist air to the highest latitudes, rendering land masses that are to the north of the Arctic circle marginally useful to man, at least in summer, a situation very different to that which prevails in the Antarctic where the warmest locations may thaw for just one month in a year. The hemispheres are so different that it is really like two planets in one.
It is the roaring forties that brought the clipper ships via the Cape of Good Hope to Australia to disembark settlers and load grain on a round trip of about 200 days. Clippers, the Formula 1 of sailing ships, continued in an easterly direction via Cape Horn, braving giant swells, ice floes, and extreme wind chill. This is the latitude of Spain and Portugal in the northern hemisphere but the climate is different there. The Westerlies in the northern hemisphere are Arcadian zephyrs when compared to the Westerlies of the roaring forties. For an interesting perspective on the Roaring Forties see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_route
The Trade winds of the northern hemisphere are much stronger in winter, and stronger than the southern Trades in any season, but the southern trades are more constant. In northern summer the north east trades are weak.
Variations in surface pressure over time, the key to climate change
The average tells us little about the habitability of a place. We need to appreciate the extremes.
Figure 4 Range in atmospheric pressure experienced since 1948 according to latitude in mb
Figure 4 records the difference between the highest and lowest monthly average sea level pressure for the four summer and the four winter months taken as a group. It is plain that variability increases with latitude. Variability is greater in the southern hemisphere and greater in winter than summer. In the northern hemisphere winter variability in is almost twice as great as summer variability. The flux in pressure at the highest latitude of the northern hemisphere is almost as great as it is in the southern hemisphere. This has important implications for the variability in climate in the entire hemisphere because the north lacks the stabilizer of the low pressure trough at 60-70° south latitude that is apparent in figure 2 and also in the map that heads this post. The northern hemisphere might be characterized as ‘an accident that is waiting to happen’.
Figure 5 Difference between sea level pressure extremes for winter and summer, a measure of the swing between the seasons.
Figure 5 shows the extent of change in the extremes of the pressure differentials between summer and winter. This statistic is simply the difference between the curves in figure 4. Latitudes pole-wards of 60°north and 80° south see the most extreme shift between summer and winter. This diagram gives us a measure of the extent to which the atmosphere can shift about, affecting wind direction and strength, within the space of a year. The ‘lumps and bumps’ at 30-60°north and 40-70°south relate to the ‘annular mode’ or ‘ring like mode’ associated with the flux in ozone from the winter pole and associated geopotential height anomalies, the atmospheric heating via the absorption of long wave radiation from the earth by ozone. This generates change in cloud cover with associated flux in sea surface temperature. This is the essence of the Northern Annular Mode (the Arctic Oscillation) and the Southern Annular Mode (The Antarctic Oscillation). Describing this mode, and the origin of its locomotion, will be the subject of the second post in this series.
What figure 5 does not reveal is the extent to which the atmosphere can shift between one hemisphere and the other, something that changes the dynamic in the annular modes over time. Flux within just a single hemisphere is something that never actually occurs and yet you would think, from our reliance on the AO and the AAO that it is of no importance whatsoever. Wrong.
Change in the distribution of the atmosphere
Figure 6 evolution of sea level pressure at high latitudes in mb
Figure 6 shows that there has been a systematic loss of atmospheric pressure at the poles since 1948 and a partial recovery. Trend lines are second order polynomials. Notice the upward trend in Arctic pressure in winter after 1989 (black line). The loss in pressure in both polar jurisdictions up to 1989 indicates external forces at work. Antarctic winter pressure is yet to bottom. Otherwise pressure appears to have bottomed in the 1990’s. As Antarctic summer pressure has increased just a little, Arctic pressure has increased a great deal. As we shall see this will change the climate of the northern hemisphere.
Change in distribution of atmospheric mass affects the differential pressure driving the winds. Figures 7 and 8 show the changing distribution of atmospheric mass over time in two key latitudes in the northern hemisphere.
Figure 7 Sea Level Pressure at 80-90°N and 30-40°N in June July August and September. mb
In summer, the increasing atmospheric mass at latitude 30-40°north and diminishing atmospheric mass at 80-90°north increases the domain of the south westerly winds warming the high latitudes. The trend lines suggest that a reversal of this process is underway.
Figure 8. Pressure at 80-90°north and 30-40°north in December, January, February and March. Mb.
In winter (figure 8), atmospheric pressure at 30-40°north latitude has been slowly increasing since 1948 and mass over the Arctic fell away till 1990 favoring the Westerlies over the Polar Easterlies. But pressure has recovered in the Arctic since 1990. When the brown line rises above the blue, the easterlies dominate and a cold winter is experienced in the northern hemisphere. The latest data in figure 8 relates to the winter of 2009-10.
A falling AO indicates a change in pressure relativity favoring the Polar Easterlies. A rule of thumb is that surface atmospheric pressure in the Arctic is inversely related to the Arctic Oscillation Index. When the AO falls, pressure is rising in the Arctic.
In all the following diagrams except the last monthly data is reported. The statistic is the anomaly. I calculate the monthly average for the entire period 1948 to November 2010 and the anomaly represents the departure from that average. The changing pressure differential driving the surface winds indicates the nature of monthly weather and to the extent that it departs from the average in a systematic fashion over long periods of time represents climate change in action.
Figure 9 Anomalies in differential pressure between 30-40°N and 50-60°N (differential Westerlies North) and 50-60°N and 80-90°N (differential Easterlies North) Monthly data. Mb.
The data in figure 9 relates to the northern hemisphere. The monthly anomalies reveal a flux in the differential pressure driving the Polar Easterlies (right hand axis) that is about three times the flux in the differential driving the Westerlies. Weak easterlies are sometimes associated with strong Westerlies, but for much of the time, surprise, surprise, the two move together. For both the Easterlies and the Westerlies to advance at the same time an inter-hemispheric redistribution of atmospheric mass is required allied with an intensification of the low pressure cells where the two converge (polar cyclones). This generates weather extremes. Rest easy. These are naturally generated extremes. Records tend to be broken at both ends of the spectrum. More heat and more cold.
The paradigm of the Arctic Oscillation takes no cognizance of this inter-hemispheric shift in pressure and cannot therefore fully account for the change in weather and climate that occurs. The second order polynomials in figure 9 suggest a cyclical pattern of change. The dominance of the Westerlies after 1978 is associated with warming winter temperatures and melting ice sheets in the Arctic a reversal of the circumstance that caused the Arctic to cool for thirty years up to the late 1970’s.
When the pressure differential is negative the wind ceases to exist and another takes its place blowing from the opposite direction. If you cover the bottom part of the graph below the zero point and inspect the curves above that point you get an idea of how the wind direction and temperature has changed over the course of time.
Figure 10 Anomalies in differential pressure between 30-40°N and 0-10°N (differential Trades North), 30-40°N and 50-60°N (differential Westerlies North) Monthly data. Mb.
Figure 10 reveals that the Trades and the Westerlies of the northern hemisphere vary together. Again, the polynomial (3d order) suggests reversible phenomena. This diagram is a representation of a climate system oscillating about a mean state in a fashion that makes it very difficult to model unless the forces moving the system away from the mean state are recognized, are quantifiable and predictable. If you cannot do this forget about modeling.
Cloud cover and ENSO
Figures 11 and 12 break new ground in understanding climate science. The connection between cloud cover and ENSO is apparent.
Figure 11 1948-1977
dWN (differential pressure between latitude 30-40°north and 50-60° north, the pressure driving the South Westerly winds in the Northern Hemisphere). SST (Sea Surface Temperature).
Figure 12 1978-2010
Figures 11 and 12 show us that the temperature of the sea in the mid latitudes of the northern hemisphere varies directly with the differential pressure driving the Westerly winds. When the wind blows harder we expect the sea to cool. But it warms. One infers a loss of cloud cover. The cooling of the sea between 1948 and warming thereafter are entirely accounted for in the shift in the mass of the atmosphere that lies behind the change in wind strength and the flux in ozone that causes the cloud cover to change. The explanation of the ozone dynamic must await the next post. The warming of the sea in the northern hemisphere in winter is the distinctive feature of climate change as it has been experienced over the last thirty years. The cooling of the sea in the northern hemisphere between 1950 and 1978, under the influence of changes in the distribution of atmospheric mass, provides the key to an explanation of climate change.
Figure 13 Evolution of sea surface temperature in mid and low latitudes of the northern hemisphere.
Figure 13 shows that the temperature of the sea between the equator and 30°north follows the temperature of the sea at 30-50° north but in a less agitated fashion. It appears that the cloud cover response in tropical waters is less energetic than it is in the mid latitudes. I suggest, no I insist, that the ENSO phenomenon in the Pacific, and climate change on all time scales, is ultimately due to changes in cloud albedo. ENSO is not climate neutral. ENSO is not a driver of climate change. It reflects climate change as it happens just as the ripples on the sea reflect change in the wind. Global temperature trends are not confounded by ENSO dynamics. ENSO is part of the whole, integrating the effects of change that occurs in latitudes where the cloud dynamic is more sensitive than it is in the tropics.
Figure 14 dWS (differential pressure between latitude 30-40° south and 60-70° south) SST (the temperature of the surface of the sea between 30-50°south latitude).
Figure 14 shows that the temperature of the sea in the southern hemisphere moves with the strength of the westerly winds in a very similar fashion to that seen in the northern hemisphere.
I repeat that the dynamic behind this phenomenon is the flux of ozone from the winter pole as atmospheric mass moves to and from the pole, enhancing or limiting the flow through the night jet thereby metering the flow of nitrogen oxides from the mesosphere. When NOx flow is reduced ozone concentration rises. Ozone finds its way into the upper troposphere as can be seen in any map of 200hpa height anomalies. Sea surface temperature responds precisely in accord with this spatial pattern. As the upper troposphere warms the cloud evaporates.
At the root of the increasing temperature of the sea is the long term shift in atmospheric mass away from the Antarctic, and the consequent increase in the temperature of the stratosphere in the southern hemisphere prior to 1978. The slow build of pressure at 30-40° south and the increase in the strength of the westerlies is just collateral damage. The decline in rainfall in my part of the world (South West Australia) is part of this phenomenon. High pressure cells are relatively cloud free and have dry air. As the Antarctic regains the atmospheric mass that it has lost, the high pressure cells of 30-40° south will shrink and the frontal action that brings the rainfall will move north again.
Figure 15 Changing atmospheric pressure at the poles
Figure 15 shows a 12 month moving average of polar pressure. It suggests that polar pressure is currently increasing at both poles with the Arctic leading the way. Frequently both poles experience a loss or gain of mass at the same time. This suggests a dynamic where the interchange of atmospheric mass is primarily between high and low latitudes. Something attracts the atmosphere away from the poles, weakening the polar easterlies and strengthening the Trades and the Westerlies. This is plainly associated with loss of cloud and surface heating. Inversely as surface pressure increases at the poles the flow of NOx from the mesosphere will increase, ozone concentration in the stratosphere will fall and surface temperature will fall. Atmospheric mass is returning to the poles especially in the northern hemisphere, particularly in winter when it matters most.
The second post will trace the flux in ozone from the polar stratosphere that erodes cloud cover in the mid and low latitudes.
The third post will describe a force that shifts the atmosphere between the poles and the equator and between the hemispheres causing the winds to wax and wane, the clouds to come and go and the sea to warm and cool. This is a force that is external to the Earth. So I see the Climate System as responding to external stimuli. It is an open system with ever changing parameters.
I want to give thanks to Leif Svalgaard whose continuing presence at this venue stimulates so much interest. We cannot agree on everything but that’s entirely healthy. To argue is human. At the end of the day its the integrity of the author that is important. Leif said to me once, when highly provoked: ‘I don’t do red herrings’. And I believe him.
“When the wind blows harder we expect the sea to cool. But it warms. One infers a loss of cloud cover. ”
That one went by kind of fast.
Why would one expect the sea to cool when the wind blows harder?
Why should one infer a loss of cloud cover to explain the expectation I don’t know I should have?
Erl – thanks for an interesting post. I will have to re-read it a few times to get my mind around it.
Fig. 15 interests me : you say “Figure 15 shows a 12 month moving average of polar pressure. It suggests that polar pressure is currently increasing at both poles with the Arctic leading the way. Frequently both poles experience a loss or gain of mass at the same time. This suggests a dynamic where the interchange of atmospheric mass is primarily between high and low latitudes. Something attracts the atmosphere away from the poles, weakening the polar easterlies and strengthening the Trades and the Westerlies. This is plainly associated with loss of cloud and surface heating.“.
Correct me where I go wrong :- By polar pressure’ you mean atmospheric pressure at a pole, and by loss or gain of mass you mean loss or gain of atmospheric mass. wrt the N Pole, the loss of cloud and surface heating are associated with the decline in the blue graph from ~1978 to ~1990 or maybe to ~2008. I am looking at the actual not the smoothed. So that tallies with the observed warming in the Arctic over roughly that period. So far so good. But over the same period, the S Pole graph behaved similarly though more markedly, yet the Antarctic, if anything, cooled (Eric Steig notwithstanding). By your argument, there should have been loss of cloud over this period in the Antarctic too (I have no way of checking that). If you are correct, then it looks like Henrik Svensmark is right when he says that loss of cloud over the Antarctic tends to deliver cooling not warming, because clouds are less reflective than the icecap.
I would be interested in any comment you may have on this, and also whether you have any data confirming the polar cloud changes that you refer to. (Apologies if it’s already in your post, I don’t recall seeing it).
Excellent post Erl, and yes, as Stephen Wile commented there is a lot of parallel between your ideas and his.
I look forward to your next post!
And yes, it is true that many great scientists are very bad at written English. Two of the best organic chemists I have ever worked with had terrible punctuation, capitalisation, spelling and grammar. I’m not claiming my English is above reproach, just to note that a great science mind and a great linguistic mind do not always go together.
A truly great post and by someone with some honest cajones. Besides its primary aim it certainly exposed some very and pedantic minds.
What it said to me, was clear and simple. The Northern Hemisphere and the south are very very different. This I knew but had not considered in that fashion. Very generally the South is 2/3 sea balance land. The north 1/3 sea and the balance land. This has two obvious effects, land heats and sheds heat quickly, ocean does not, so the thermal balance is vastly different. Secondly sea does not obstruct or divert wind, land does. This shows that shape and nature are vital components. Are these included in the alarmists models I ask.
Second thought, I was taught that high pressure equals falling air and low pressure rising air. Thus looking at my shape comments above and relating them to pressure, whilst there is a correlation they do not seem to me to be connected. possibly another force or vector is at work here.
I will look forward to the next part.
Climatologists are more concerned with trends than cycles. They then miss the real science of climate which is cyclic.
Thanks very much for your insightful perspective, it is not often that clear and in depth analysis such as this are understood at first reading, as evidenced by some of the comments. Much strength to your arm in further writing on this line of reasoning, I look forward to the rest of these installments.
Richard Holle
Thanks to Anthony for hosting this discussion. Thanks for the comments. I see from the vehemence of some of the objections to this post that cherished belief systems have been shaken. I am happy about that.
To those who want me to get into some serious statistical analysis I say this. The data tells its own story. When the easterlies of polar origin stay in the stratosphere and don’t descend to the surface it is the westerlies that dominate. It is like a switch on an air conditioner. One way it cools and the other way it warms. The pressure relations tell us so. Put your head in the sand if you want to. No, go out and put it in the snow.
Now I could be wrong in suggesting that Antarctic sea level pressure has bottomed and a recovery will occur, but I don’t think so and I hope that you can be convinced as I post more information. Pressure in the Arctic depends upon the pull from Antarctica all year round. The gorilla in the room is the loss of atmospheric mass in the Antarctic. So far I see no reasonable explanation as to why this occurred or even any discussion as to what the implications could be.
In my next post I will describe the mechanism that lies behind the change in sea surface temperature when polar pressure changes. There is a school of thought that says that ENSO drives the Arctic Oscillation, i.e drives the change in pressure relations between the high and the mid latitudes. This school of thought relies on very sophisticated statistical analysis to show that yes there is a connection between sea surface temperature in the tropics and the way in which the AO happens to lean. And the same has been mooted in relation to the Antarctic Oscillation.
But, the modes of causation suggested are unbelievably tenuous. I will give you a much more believable scenario and back it up with some pretty convincing observational relationships. Stats are absolutely useless without a believable scenario. Indeed, it can be pretty obvious what drives what when you are aware that multifold influences impinge, but ask a statistician to back it up with some sort of correlation coefficient and he will be hard pressed to assist.
I am reminded of a comment by a very successful plant breeder, John Gladstones, who developed a lupin plant that has been important in dry land Australian agriculture. John said, If you can’t see the difference in the field don’t worry about the stats because unless there is a ‘stand out difference visible to the naked eye’ it’s not worth worrying about. And that’s the sort of stuff I am talking about.
My purpose has been to show that climate changes with the pressure relations driving the winds and that substantial change has occurred. That change is wholly consistent with the mode of warming that has been observed. That should be sufficient to give the AGW idea the flick. The usual argument is that “We can’t think of anything else so it must be man”. My aim has to add that something else and in that I have succeeded. Rather, I have simply pointed out that it is in the climate record.
But, I am not holding my breath. I don’t think the ‘science’ or the ‘stats’ or anything much matters if your habitual mode of thought are that man is the biggest threat to the planet.
Joe Lalonde says:
January 12, 2011 at 5:40 am
Erl,
I have been trying to show how an Ice Age is an atmospheric event and not a solar event.
Be interested in seeing your theory.
For a good explanation of an orbital possibility see:
David says:
January 12, 2011 at 7:38 am
Jeroen says:
January 12, 2011 at 5:54 am
Yes, my error.
alan neil ditchfield says:
January 12, 2011 at 6:44 am
The alarmism in relation to extreme weather events does not help anyone. The sooner we get a handle on what drives natural variations and the extent of the extreme events that might be expected, the better. Flood mitigation is a basic planning priority.
alan neil ditchfield says:
January 12, 2011 at 6:44 am
Yes, very much so but the radiative proposition is negated by convection.
izen says:
January 12, 2011 at 7:29 am
The notion that ozone levels have been materially affected by CFC’s was promoted by a group of environmentally focused chemists who knew little of the global circulation. Meteorologists would possibly suggest that NOx from the mesosphere is more influential.
David says:
January 12, 2011 at 7:38 am
NOW MY three OUESTIONS. We have major bi-annual changes in albedo, cloud cover, cloud location, humidity, pressure fields, wind fields, water temperatures and so on, all due to this immense seasonal flux.
Do the climate models predict these known changes? NO
If we cannot effectively model these very large annual changes then how can we expect to accurately model much smaller changes? WE CANT
Can we gain insight into “where the energy goes” by looking at these seasonal changes? ABSOLUTELY
And I agree with everything you wrote.
stevenmosher says:
January 12, 2011 at 10:52 am
That won’t get you far.
TimC says:
January 12, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Is this a just quirky personal theory, or for real? Is it published? Will it truly benefit us to understand it properly?
Tim, it’s not that difficult. Is it important to you that things make sense?
Lucy Skywalker says:
January 12, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I will include a graph with a smaller time frame in the next post.
“You seem to ascribe here a lot of power to ozone and I wait to see it explained. However I am aware that its GHG power to absorb UV, which converts to heat, is the whole reason for the existence of the stratosphere”
Usually the warmth of the stratosphere is ascribed to absorption of short wave lengths by the atmosphere. However, there is a signature for OLR in the stratosphere that occurs above the cold waters of the SE Pacific. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/time_plot/ A lot of heat is lost in the atmosphere by simple decompression. But, if there is no uplift, then heat is lost predominantly via radiation. You can see a positive anomaly at 10hPa over this part of the world that can only be due to ozone picking up OLR. The same factor heats the descending air in the polar stratosphere. The vortex pulls this warm air downwards, but this will be news to Tom Rude. Wind in the mesosphere moves from the summer to the winter hemisphere and sets up a spiralling circulation above the winter pole. The signal of an increase in atmospheric mass at the pole is rising air temperature in descending air. The ozone profile determines that. The positive anomaly in temperature corresponds to a greater geopotential height.
Here is a good primer:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 104, NO. D24, PP. 30,937-30,946, 1999
doi:10.1029/1999JD900445
Propagation of the Arctic Oscillation from the stratosphere to the troposphere
Mark P. Baldwin Timothy J. Dunkerton
Geopotential anomalies ranging from the Earth’s surface to the middle stratosphere in the northern hemisphere are dominated by a mode of variability known as the Arctic Oscillation (AO). The AO is represented herein by the leading mode (the first empirical orthogonal function) of low-frequency variability of wintertime geopotential between 1000 and 10 hPa. In the middle stratosphere the signature of the AO is a nearly zonally symmetric pattern representing a strong or weak polar vortex. At 1000 hPa the AO is similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation, but with more zonal symmetry, especially at high latitudes. In zonal-mean zonal wind the AO is seen as a north-south dipole centered on 40°–45°N; in zonal-mean temperature it is seen as a deep warm or cold polar anomaly from the upper troposphere to ∼10 hPa. The association of the AO pattern in the troposphere with modulation of the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex provides perhaps the best measure of coupling between the stratosphere and the troposphere. By examining separately time series of AO signatures at tropospheric and stratospheric levels, it is shown that AO anomalies typically appear first in the stratosphere and propagate downward. The midwinter correlation between the 90-day low-pass-filtered 10-hPa anomaly and the 1000-hPa anomaly exceeds 0.65 when the surface anomaly time series is lagged by about three weeks. The tropospheric signature of the AO anomaly is characterized by substantial changes to the storm tracks and strength of the midtropospheric flow, especially over the North Atlantic and Europe. The implications of large stratospheric anomalies as precursors to changes in tropospheric weather patterns are discussed.
South Atlantic magnetic anomaly? I have no idea
Tim Folkerts says:
January 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Don’t like my pressure figures. Can’t see the decline? Then perhaps look at the AO index itself.
Really, I have no patience with this sort of smart alec one-upmanship. Address the argument if you can. I suggest you have a look at the Baldwin and Dunkerton reference and get up to speed re the phenomena and change over time. I am talking about the Northern annular Mode and the Southern annular Mode, the major modes of inter-annual variability in the Earth’s climate. What I am doing here is to give the historical perspective to change in these modes over time.
Dinostratus says:
January 12, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Wind blows harder surface cools because of enhanced evaporation due to larger surface area.
Mike Jonas says:
January 13, 2011 at 12:38 am
Mike, I don’t mention polar cloud at all. I look at sea surface temperature in the mid latitudes as a result of ozone flux into the troposphere. That is the post to come.
Climatologists are more concerned with trends than cycles. They then miss the real science of climate which is cyclic.
What does one expect when the climate science community considers 30 years “long term”. The epitome of not seeing the world beyond your nose.
Erl – thanks for your go-around. I will try to get my brain around it then!
Isn’t it always important that things make sense, really at the gut-feel level? That is the essence of my problem with CAGW theory: if the feedbacks were really positive I feel sure the system would have gone divergent millions if not billions of years ago. We humans would not be here now, to worry about it …
Thanks again – it’s that cold towel for me again, then.
North Atlantic
Effect of solar activity
Boberg and Lundstedt (2002, 2003) showed that variations of the NAO index could be correlated with the electric field strength of the solar wind. Using geopotential height data they found a strong correlation between the electric field strength of the solar wind and pressure variations in the stratosphere and troposphere. For the tropospheric pressure the influence is confined to the North Atlantic and resembles the action of the NAO.
If the 17-yr time lag between the NAO index and Kola Section temperature remains in the future, one can expect that the Barents Sea will remain anomalously warm until about 2012. After that, a long term cooling trend until about 2023 is likely. The cooling may start as a sharp decline of winter temperatures.
http://www.climatelogic.com/book/export/html/182
The Response of the Thermosphere and Ionosphere to Magnetospheric Forcing
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/328/1598/139.abstract
In for a penny.
This indicates to me that the Solar electric current enters the earth via the North Pole, Causing an increase in air Pressure. This current reacts with the iron core, causing it to spin. This then sets up a strong magnetic field, the poles of which wander according to the current strength and angle of the earth to the current. The current then exist via the South Pole, stripping mass from the atmosphere thus causing the lower air pressure.
These inward and outward events also have heat implications which combine with the atmospheric heat caused by uv light from the sun generating ozone.
Makes sense to me and fits the observations.
“”””” Paul Vaughan says:
January 12, 2011 at 7:27 pm
George E. Smith, I would caution you not to conflate data analysis with statistical inference (the latter of which is based on a lot of assumptions that simply don’t hold in many fields in practice, even though mainstream convention is often to pretend otherwise [a foolhardy custom]). “””””
Well Paul, If I had ANY idea what you just said (above), I would try to make some intelligent comment.
“”””” George E. Smith says:
January 12, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Well I can’t say that I am competent to either understand or criticize Erl’s paper, so I am sure I will have to read it may times to try and understand. “””””
Well THAT is actually what I said.
So I couldn’t find an OED definition of “Conflate”; but I did look at the Merriam Webster definition; and from that definition I can see that “Conflate” is self referencing. So who can know what that word means.
If you mean “Confuse”, then say “Confuse”. If you mean “Combine” then say “combine”. If you mean “mix up” then say “mix up”; but if you say “conflate” nobody will have any idea what you mean.
And as for these:- “”””” data analysis with statistical inference “”””” Well I have no idea what you mean there either.
Now “data analysis” I do understand; I do it all day, every day. But I would never have considered “statistical manipulation” to be “data analysis”. “Data obfuscation” maybe, but not data analysis, since rather than analysing the data; one replaces that data, with made up substitutes for that data; as if there somehow was more information in that substitute, than was in the original data.
As for statistical inference; I have no idea whatsoever what that is; but it almost sounds to me, something akin to believing the statistics is real information but the original data wasn’t.
But that is all part of why I said:- “”””” Well I can’t say that I am competent to either understand or criticize Erl’s paper, so I am sure I will have to read it may times to try and understand. “””””
This article shook to the very core my belief that grape growers are smarter than the grapes they grow.
Oh well, it’s not the first belief I’ve been forced to abandon.
@Happ
“Can you appreciate the difficulty attached to finding a unique vehicle in a parking lot with 2,600 others. ”
Your knowledge of chemistry is right on a par with your knowledge of physics.
It’s about as challenging as locating a cow amongst 2,600 dogs. Or a Sherman tank in a parking lot filled with Volkswagon Beetles. You’re in serious need of introductory courses in basic sciences.
Dave Springer says:
January 13, 2011 at 1:22 pm
A comedian? I gotta laugh.
Erl, I am intrigued why you did JJAS and DJFM, and not JJA and DJF ?
Hi Ulric,
Thinking:
March is still height of summer in this part of the world. Its vintage time. Same applies in many parts of the northern hemisphere.
The Southern Ocean used to have a warm temperature anomaly in mid year which disappeared post 1978. Further, if you remember my post called ‘The Climate Engine’ there was a swing in the data from mid to late year. In addition there is a curious discontinuity in the temperature data here that appears in November with sudden warming apparent. I now think that is a function of the increasing importance of the Arctic in governing ozone flux into the troposphere. Much more ozone in the northern hemisphere in general. Currently, the anomaly in sea surface temperature in the mid latitudes of the southern hemisphere reinforces the annual swing that peaks in February -March. Back in the fifties it did the opposite.
Since the turn of the century the Arctic has been the major factor driving ENSO.
Have you looked at SST anomalies recently? Big changes on a week to week basis in the southern hemisphere.
I don’t know whether one month more or less makes a lot of difference in the data. Could be that trends in the north would be more obvious if September were dropped out of the calculation. I haven’t tried it.
Really, to decide which months to include in the analysis one would have to look at when the variability in the AO becomes significant in determining stratospheric temperature and whether that has changed over time.
Thanks for the reference which I will enjoy perusing
Dave,
Less fluff and more substance would be good. Address the argument. Make a contribution. Insults merely betray your degree of unease.
Look at the data yourself and tell me why there has been a 10mb increase in the pressure differential driving the westerlies in the southern hemisphere since 1948. Get with the substance lad. Don’t just get angry, get even.
If your first post on this thread is fair indication of your grasp of matters pertaining to the effect of the atmosphere on energy accumulation at the surface then your expertise in the field is wholly apparent.
Erl – “I don’t mention polar cloud at all. I look at sea surface temperature in the mid latitudes as a result of ozone flux into the troposphere.“.
That wasn’t clear to me as I read the blurb on Fig.15 – which was all about the poles. So presumably when you said “Something attracts the atmosphere away from the poles, weakening the polar easterlies and strengthening the Trades and the Westerlies. This is plainly associated with loss of cloud and surface heating.“, the “This” [my emphasis] refers principally to the Trades and the Westerlies not the pole or the polar easterlies.
Somehow, I’ve got to find more time to read through it all a lot more carefully …..
This is a very impressive presentation. Lots to absorb – especially the relationships he shows. It is only anecdotal, but NE Illinois is often on a cusp between weather systems, and whether we are on the SE side of systems coming through (from Southwesterlies in AMJJAS) or not makes a huge difference in our local climate. Since about 1985 we’ve been what I literally call “the climate capitol of the U.S. We have dodged so many weather bullets because of where that cusp line is. Winter winds since then have been much more often straight westerlies, rather than the earlier northwesterlies – and us being IN the path of them, rather than them sliding to our north.
Like I said, that is just local, and just weather – but it has been such a clear change and over that long of period, so if it is not climate, I’d disagree with the dividing line.
My general assessment is that I agree. I don’t know the statistical parts of what goes on here and at CA. But I do know that winds move from high to low pressure, so this treatment is eminently reasonable, on a qualitative basis, even though it is all quantitative data. The wind patterns changed – over the entire US Midwest, judging from weathermaps I’ve observed for 35 years here – and right about the time the charts say it did. A look back would confirm pictorially much of what Erl Happ has shown here. It isn’t proof, but it fits with the US Midwest as I’ve seen it happen.
Three figures stood out for me (though all are very instructive):
Figure 8 – Pegs exactly the 1976-7 and 1978-9 winters when the Alberta Clippers came screaming down from the pole over the US Midwest and East, as well as the 2009-2010 winter of arctic temps and blizzards in Europe.
Figure 11 – the transition to positive is right at the time of the Great 1976-1977 Climate Change, if that means anything. And I think it does.
Figure 12 – This really pegs the super minimum Arctic Ice of 2007 and gives a reason for it – the high pressure differential pushing warmer air north from the 30°N-40°N region to the 50°N-60°N region. This bulge of warm air must have had some degree of push northward against the polar air high pressure system. The differential spiked for just that one year and then settled back down to more normal levels.
From reading this blog, I have discovered that as the Arctic shrinks the Antarctic expands, maintaining roughly a total balance of ice Similarly when the Antarctic shrinks the Arctic expands.
Why is that.
Seeing how the Tropics and the ITCZ act as a barrier between the two hemispheres and the fundamental different dynamics of both hemispheres, how can this action be paired except by an external force.
Mike Jonas says:
January 13, 2011 at 9:04 pm
By ‘This’ I meant the force that moves the mass of the atmosphere, changing the pressure differentials. In my next post you will see that the change in sea surface temperature is associated with a change in upper troposphere temperature. In the mid latitudes upper troposphere temperature is conditioned by a continuous flow of ozone from the stratosphere. Change the amount of ozone in the stratosphere and you change the temperature of that part of the troposphere that is subject to this continuous flow.
First things first. This post deals with change in pressure differentials and how that drives northern hemisphere climate. The reference to sea surface temperature is minimal, just enough to establish that there is a difference between two regimes. These are 1. Polar Easterlies dominant. 2 South westerlies dominant.
Grey Lensman says:
January 13, 2011 at 11:27 pm
“From reading this blog, I have discovered that as the Arctic shrinks the Antarctic expands, maintaining roughly a total balance of ice Similarly when the Antarctic shrinks the Arctic expands.
Why is that.”
This observation is true only of the last thirty years. The Arctic had another period of warm temperatures in the first half of the 20th century.
The Antarctic is protected from attack by the westerlies by that deep low pressure zone that rings the globe at latitude 60-70S that you see in the map at the head of the post and also in figure 2. A good question to ask is why is it there?
The Arctic is not protected by a low pressure zone and is vulnerable to influence from the westerlies. Even when the low pressure zone is formed during negative AO conditions it forms only over the oceans leaving the continents vulnerable to a flow of cold air that, under the circumstances is well channeled rather than dispersed. That probably enhances the degree of penetration that occurs. Alabama, Venezuela, South China, India and so on.
The difference is undoubtedly due in part to the distribution of land and sea. Antarctica is a big cold sink, all pretty well below freezing point all the time, surrounded by cold ocean, doubling its surface area in winter but susceptible to erosion by warmer waters. There is no intermittent, on again, off again flow from the stratosphere. Its continuous with the polar night jet connecting to the mesosphere. That keeps ozone concentration low which in turn keeps the descending air cool. That circulation creates its own low pressure zone I believe due persistent descent of ozone into the troposphere creating a geopotential anomaly that begins at the surface and is widest in extent at the top of the stratosphere. Geopotential anomalies in the stratosphere are connected with ozone descent.
I have no explanation for the gain in ice mass in Antarctica except to suggest that, given the temperature, that gain has been going on for a very long time. Gain is limited of course by precipitation which is very light.
The strange thing is that if the atmosphere gets colder (as in Antarctica) than the rest of the globe the weight of the atmospheric column over Antarctica should increase. But it has decreased (falling sea surface pressure). That indicates that an external process must be at work.
Is it chewing gum that’s holding the atmosphere up at low latitudes or something with more persistence?